Pachim K'tanim

R' Moshe explains that the reason that a Tzadik's money is more precious to him than himself is because he realizes and appreciates that it was given to him by Gd just as his own body was.

Vayakam Hasadeh L'Avraham, Chazal state "Kima Haysa La" The land didnt only change from the possesion of Efron to Avraham, it also had a status change. The reason for its change of status was because Avraham appreciated it for what it was and treated it as such. It became part of Avraham just as his other possesions were part of him. This is why we can learn "Kicha Kicha M'sdei Efron" how is it that we can learn the kinyan of Kidushin from the kinyan of a sadeh which is a material kinyan while the kinyan of an Isha is a whole different dimension. The answer is that the kicha of a Sadeh for Avraham had the same status as the kinyan of an Isha; it became a part of his being because he understood that Gd wanted him to have it. A Tzadik that recognizes this has no right to ignore Pachim Ktanim as if the small gifts that Gd gives him are not worth it, he must remember it is like the kicha of his wife.

Additionally, interestingly in Parshas Toldos Rivka says "Im ken Lama Zeh Anochi" when she feels that she cannot bear the burden of the two babies in her womb struggeling. Later in the Parsha Esav uses the same wording when he comes in from the field and asks Yaakov for the red lentils and Yaakov says I will sell you lentils for the "Bechora" Esav states "Lama zeh Li Bechora". Both Rivka and Esav say "Lama Zeh" at the time when they are looking to part from something that was at one time seemingly a very important possession of theirs (Rivka; the babies and Esav; the Right of Firstborn).

Rivka had prayed for a child her whole life. It must have been an unbelievably happy event when she learned that she was pregnant but even so at some point she felt that she could not deal with the pain or responsibility or some aspect of it. We all have the similar situations in our life where we pray and pray for something assuming that that something will bring us to a certain somewhere. However once we get that something, sometimes we realize that the thing we prayed for comes with many more responsibilities or baggage than we had imagined. Then we start second guessing ourselves. Should we have asked? are we really bettor off now that we have what we asked for? etc. Sometimes we realize intellectually that it is still a good thing but it is hard emotionally to deal with the stress or responsibility of having that great thing or position or child or money or power etc etc. We start saying..."Lama Zeh" why did I invest so much into gaining this thing or position, its maybe not worth it. "Lama Zeh"

Both Rivka and Esav say "Lama Zeh". Rivka cannot deal with the struggling inside of her and Esav wants out of the firstborn right because he would rather just live a life of instant gratification. They both know that they possess a great thing but at the moment they don't want to deal with the ramifications of owning that great thing.

Rivka perseveres. "Vatelech Lidrosh Et Hashem" and she gets a response "Shnei Goyim etc". Yes its hard but you are investing in greatness. When Rivka asked the question "Lama Zeh" she added the word "Anochi" she understood that if God granted her this thing it must be considered as part of her. This perception allowed her to continue forward and accept whatever trials and tribulations came with that gift. Rivka recognized that it was "Anochi" it was now part of her essence and she must and can live with it just as she lives within her own body and accepts who she is. She is now a person with a struggling fetus and she must deal with it.

Esav however, say "Lama Zeh LI" he says "LI" as opposed to "Anochi" Li is a word that connoted ownership and attachment but not an essential part. Esav perceived Gods gift to him as something that he owned but didn't become part of his essence therefore it was easier for him to part with it as soon as it becomes even somewhat of a burden.

Esav says "Henei anochi Holech Lamus" behold "ANOCHI" will die and when my essence dies I will not need this "Bechora" when Esav says"Henei anochi Holech Lamus" he is effectively saying very clearly that this Bechora thing is NOT part of me and therefore I will gladly part with it. 

Mi She'eyn Bo Deah Assur L'eracham alav

The Maharsha in Sanhedrin asks why is one who has no da'as worse than  a dog which we are commanded upon which we are commanded to have mercy.

R' Moshe explains that the world was created with "Din" and Din is the ultimate Tachlis of the world. However, because Gd saw that the world could not exist in perpetuity with only Midas Hadin, he therefore added a measure of Midas Harachamim to work together with the Midas Hadin. We see that Midas Harachamim is there to give things a Kiyum in the world. One who has no Da'as does not have a Kiyum intrinsically. No amount of Midas Harachamim can change that. It is therefore forbidden to use Midas Harachamim in a circumstance where it cannot perpetuate its subject.

Botzeah Beereich Nee'yeitz Hashem

The Talmud in Sanhedrin has a few explanations for this Posuk in Mishlei one of the explanations is that as the Posuk simply seems to state- Botzeah -One who steals-- Beereich-- Then makes a blessing on the stolen object (food presumably) --Neeaytz Hashem- Is degrading Hashem rather than blessing him.

The question is what is really so bad about making a bracha on a stolen item? Granted he is a bad guy and he would be better off not stealing and not making a bracha. However he already stole it, so why is it necessarily worse to make a bracha on that stolen item?

Rav Moshe Chaim Luzato in Derech Hashem explains the concept of Bracha and the reason for it. Based on this  reasoning it will be very obvious why a Botzeah Bereich is a Neeaytz Hashem and you cannot say that at least he made a bracha or that it can't hurt.
The reason the Derech Hashem gives is as follows: We should be directing all our actions towards "Avodas Hashem" by uplifting the mundane towards that goal we are bringing the world to its goal. When we make a bracha, we are uplifting all the toil that went into making that foodstuff and all the previous processes that went into getting that food to this table and stating that it was for Avodas Hashem. In one fell swoop we are aggregating huge amounts of man hours and labor and uplifting it so that we can claim that all the labor from the outset to get that food to this table was for Avodas Hashem. This cannot be done if the food is stolen, it would be a direct contradiction to what you are stating. Imagine, you are saying that all the toil that got the food to this table was for god's glory, and meanwhile it got to your table through nefarious means, you would be making a mockery of the bracha. That is the meaning of Botzeah Beereich Neeaytz Hashem.

As an aside, another pshat in why we make a bracha according to the Maharal is-- We know that all things were created for God's glory hence the concept of shira and perek shira attributed to Dovid Hamelech whereby all creatures through their essential being are saying shira to their creator. When we consume any item that was created where are causing that thing to stop saying shira. In order to fill the void of shira that we are creating by consuming something we say a bracha.

About the prohibition for a non-priest to publicly pronounce the priestly blessings

The Talmud in Ketuvot 24B spells out clearly that a non-priest is prohibited from publicly pronouncing the blessing and the Talmud calls it an "Issur Aseh" (a negative commandment derived from a positive one). Rashi explains that the positive commandment reffered to here is "Koh Sivarchu" (So you shall Bless). It is therefore extremely perplexing that Tosafot in Shabbat 118B says in the name of R"i that "R'i did not know of any source to prohibit a non-priest from reciting the priestly blessing in public if not for the issue of his making the initial blessing in vain".

The Rama in his work "Darchei Moshe" says, cryptically, that there is a difference between when he recites the blessing with other priests as opposed to his being the only so-called priest reciting it for the public. Obviously this needs some explaining as there is seemingly no halachic difference between the two situations.

The Hafla'ah gives a brilliant explanation to this seemingly cryptic Darchei Moshe. He says, that there is one halachic contingency for the priestly blessing to be considered valid. That contingency is that the priest has to be called to bless the public by the public. This is the reason the Shliach Tzibur cries out "Kohanim" before he starts the blessing. Based on that Halacha, The Hafla'ah says we can understand very simply the difference between the Darchei Moshe's two cases. When this non-priest is among other real priests being called upon to bless the congregation, he is then violating the commandment of  "Koh Sivarchu" as he is impersonating a priest. However, when this non-priest is the only reciter of the blessing we can say that the "Shliach Tzibur" never intended to call him up to bless the congregation, he therefore is not considered to be blessing the congregation nor is he doing anything prohibited as Tosafot states in Shabbat.

The Chasam Sofer interestingly has a direct opposite take on this Darchei Moshe than his Rebbe the Hafla'ah. He says that when there are other priests together with this non-priest, then we can assume that the Shliach Tzibur wanted only to invite the real priests and not the imposters and therefore when other real priests are present this not priest is not considered as being called up or invited and not prohibited. However, when he is the only one, we cannot say that the Shliach Tzibur did not mean to call him up because he is the only one here and therefore is definitely considered a transgressor of "Koh Sivarchu"